It's long but it's good. For a British film from 1944 the production values are amazingly high. Whole buildings -- real ones -- collapse. The special effects at sea are convincing. And what a cast!

Actually, the story itself is hardly new. A diverse group of men are drafted into the Duke of Glendons, go through a training camp periods, their transport is torpedoed, and they fight a small-scale defensive battle among the ruins of a village in North Africa. Writers Eric Ambler and Peter Ustinov have whipped it into entertaining shape.

None of the men is regular army except the tough sergeant who has eyes like a lizard but the heart of a Rogerian therapist. David Niven has risen from the ranks and is a lieutenant. The men themselves, with their winsome misapprehensions, are brought into a state of readiness by a combination of strict physical demands and compassion. The leaders are stern but fair. I won't bother describing the draftees because you can already guess their nature from a dozen other war movies -- the grumbler, the show-off, the snob, the Welshman, the earnest patriot.

If you didn't know that it was directed by Carol Reed, you'd still probably notice some unusual directorial touches. A sleepy backwater little town. An old man, half asleep, brushing the flies from his face. A dog sleeping in the street. And then the distant sound of motorcycles and bren carriers growing louder. And soon a stream of British vehicles lumbering loudly through the main street and stirring the dust, with the dog lazily moping away and a disheveled Peter Ustinov emerging from the Cafe Rispoli to stare sullenly at the pageant.

It may or may not sound promising in a synopsis but in fact it's pretty good.

This is a film about a seemingly run of the mill sort of group. After the Brits were involved in WWII and saw how bad the going would be, the government was forced to draft men who would traditionally have been exempt. Men who were a bit old or involved with careers that might be deemed 'useful' to the effort were suddenly being called to duty, as times were dire. The beginning of the film shows these men being selected for service.

Unfortunately, this is a rather motley group and they tended to complain quite a bit as well (mostly by Stanley Holloway's character). How they could become a productive unit seemed pretty doubtful and I doubt if such an unimpressive group of men would have been used as actors had this propaganda film been made a few years earlier--when things looked really bad for the British. However, now that the war was appearing win-able, I can understand the choices of actors.

There is nothing particularly magical about any of the film--their selection, their training or their combat experience in North Africa. However, all of it was very well handled and excelled because they tried to make it believable--normal, everyday men rising to the occasion. In many ways, it reminded me of a landlocked version of "In Which We Serve"--with fine acting and writing instead of jingoism and super-human exploits. Very well done.

There are a few interesting actors in the film. Peter Ustinov is in his first film and he plays a French-speaking man. While his French isn't 100% fluid, it was decent and a bit of a surprise. Apparently, he was in real life David Niven's assistant in the British Army and somehow ended up in the film--and thus began his career. Also, Dr. Who fans will appreciate that the Sergeant is played by Dr. #1, William Hartnell.

By the way, this is a little explanation for those who are not British or familiar with British history. Early in the film, someone asks Stanley Holloway's character who he liked in Parliament. Holloway indicates the only one he liked was Guy Fawkes! Fawkes was part of a plot to blow up Parliament in 1605, but was caught and executed--and the Brits celebrate this to this day with Guy Fawkes Day--as day of merry-making, bonfires and fireworks! Obviously Holloway's character wasn't exactly fond of the government, eh?!

Not copyrighted in the U.S.A. A Two Cities Film, presented by G.C.F. New York opening at the Victoria: 3 June 1944. U.S. release through 20th Century-Fox: January 1945. U.K. release through General Film Distributors: 6 June 1944. Australian release through G-B-D/20th Century-Fox: 8 February 1945. 10,693 feet. 118 minutes. (DVD available from ITV Studios Home Entertainment).

As Fox did not copyright the film in the U.S.A., Unger Associates prepared and released a version re-edited by Fitz Rogers, with a Foreword by Quentin Reynolds, called "The Immortal Battalion". This American version, which runs 95 minutes, was still being aired on Australian TV as recently as 1990.

SYNOPSIS: Seven civilians are drafted into the army.

NOTES: In a switch that all writers will relish, during WW2 director Carol Reed found himself working for novelist-turned-Lieutenant Colonel Eric Ambler, who was in charge of all training, educational and morale film-making for the British Army. One such training film scripted by Ambler was "The New Lot", about a bunch of conscripts from various backgrounds and how they shaped up. Robert Donat was one of the stars. Reed and Ambler then sold the War Office brass on the idea of making a commercial feature film based on the same premise. Private Peter Ustinov was seconded with Reed to Two Cities.

COMMENT: This film falls into two parts. The training segments and the troop in action (on real locations) in North Africa. I found the first section much more entertaining than the second. The seven civilians are nicely contrasted and ingratiatingly acted, while Niven and Hartnell shine as their captain and sergeant respectively.

Also great to see (and hear) Leo Genn, even if his role is regrettably tiny. These scenes are warmly, colorfully realistic. A real nostalgia trip for me. The combat scenes, though equally realistic, I found less appealing.

It is fascinating to compare the soberly realistic approach of "The Way Ahead" with the outrageously romanticized and glorified Hollywood treatment of similar subjects. In fact, although made heroic, war is not glorified here at all. For a propaganda piece and morale- booster, the overall message is remarkably sober, even downbeat.

Full credit to Reed's meticulous yet pacey direction, Ambler and Ustinov's sharply observant script, Green's fine camera-work and Two Cities' expansive budget.

However, I'm not over-keen on the unresolved conclusion which to my mind re-enforces the down beat of the latter section of the film. Another negative is Ustinov's own on-camera performance. Is he supposed to be funny? Or are we to sympathize with him, despite his boorishness? I've seen the film many times, but I never know what to make of or how to take Rispoli.